The establishment of the Athletic Trainer Board through AB 3110 will provide a mechanism for regulating the practice of athletic training, which is expected to enhance oversight and ensure that practitioners meet necessary professional standards. This legislative move aims to reduce liability risks for California businesses, educational institutions, and organizations by ensuring that only qualified professionals can provide athletic training services. Moreover, the act will create a fund to support the regulatory activities, funded by registration fees, which will enable the board to operate sustainably without requiring state reimbursement for its regulatory functions, as specified in the bill's findings.
Assembly Bill 3110, also known as the Athletic Training Practice Act, seeks to establish a formal regulatory framework for athletic trainers in California, which is notable as California is currently the only state without such regulation. The act mandates that, beginning January 1, 2021, individuals can only practice as athletic trainers if they are registered with the newly created Athletic Trainer Board under the Department of Consumer Affairs. The bill outlines specific education and professional requirements for registration, such as graduating from a recognized athletic training program and practicing under physician supervision. It aims to enhance public safety and health standards in the profession, particularly as athletic trainers often work with minors and are involved in environments that pose health risks.
The sentiment surrounding AB 3110 is largely positive, with supporters arguing that this legislation is essential for public safety and the professional integrity of athletic training in California. Critics, however, may express concerns regarding potential barriers to entry for those looking to enter the profession, as the new requirements might restrict practice to those who can afford the necessary education and meet the regulatory demands. Nonetheless, the overarching sentiment appears to favor the establishment of standards intended to protect the public and maintain quality in athletic training services.
One point of contention may arise from the implications of regulatory oversight, particularly regarding how this framework handles practitioners from out of state and those who may not meet the new educational requirements. The bill indicates a clear intent to mitigate risks associated with unlicensed practitioners, but it also introduces penalties for unprofessional conduct that could be controversial among current athletic trainers and stakeholders. Policymakers will need to balance the need for regulation and public safety with the need for accessible pathways for practitioners entering the field.